Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

I am only suggesting some flexibility where there are clear benefits for the EU. Who is saying anything about remain lite? I have only suggested that some limited flexibility might be a good thing, not rewriting any agreements. It always makes sense in business to keep relations with important customers as good as possible and not get into rows over small things. Its only common sense.

Christ. Common sense my arse. This isn't some hardware shop selling stuff to Johnny down the road. It's a teeny weeny tiny little bit more complex than that.

forgottenhills

Strazdas wrote: »

The main reason the EU can't give any Swiss style concessions to the UK is that it is a troublemaker and a substantial part of its government, media and population are hoping and praying for the destruction of the EU i.e. the last people on earth you would want to do any favours for.

A ridiculous exaggeration. First and foremost its a big customer on our doorstep. Governments come and governments go.

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

A ridiculous exaggeration. First and foremost its a big customer on our doorstep. Governments come and governments go.

And we are a big customer on their doorstep. As is the EU. But that doesn't suit the narrative eh?

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes, it's possible with derogations. But there won't be any. Do you know why?

There have already been some flexibilities and derogations built into the TCA. There can always be more added if it makes sense.

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And we are a big customer on their doorstep. As is the EU. But that doesn't suit the narrative eh?

What narrative? I'm talking about flexibilities and cool heads all around rather than the narrative of rigidity and escalating conflict? What narrative are you espousing?

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

There have already been some flexibilities and derogations built into the TCA. There can always be more added if it makes sense.

But it doesn't make sense. Flexibilities work with trusted partners. Not with proven lying and treacherous populists.

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

What narrative? I'm talking about flexibilities and cool heads all around rather than the narrative of rigidity and escalating conflict? What narrative are you espousing?

Cool heads? Hello? Johnson and his merry bunch of populists? It takes two to tango. Heard of the Internal Market Act? Thought not.

joeysoap

Donegal seed potato producer on tv during the week. Hoping to pick up some of that Scottish business.

While on the subject shouldn’t Teagasc be involved in the development of seed potatoes so we become self sufficient in types suitable for our growing climate?

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But it doesn't make sense. Flexibilities work with trusted partners. Not with proven lying and treacherous populists.

No need for overkill. Getting back to the example of seed potatoes the Scottish farming sector have been a trusted partner of this country for decades. That isn't going to change under Johnson or indeed Starmer if he ever gets into power. We can be flexible and make side agreements to suit us or we can cut off our nose to spite our face.

forgottenhills

joeysoap wrote: »

Donegal seed potato producer on tv during the week. Hoping to pick up some of that Scottish business.

While on the subject shouldn’t Teagasc be involved in the development of seed potatoes so we become self sufficient in types suitable for our growing climate?

We should of course be self sufficient if it makes sense taking into account all considerations. I could be wrong but I think the idea was to try and isolate seed production from main crop production to avoid a disease crossover, hence it made sense to import seed from a good quality source in Scotland.


Bizarrely we also continue to import spuds for our chip shops under a derogation and that seems wrong ie we should definitely be producing those here. Although I'm not terribly well up on the industry and could be missing something.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Should the EU do that for every 3rd country or just for the UK?

Also, U am certain that it was on the table as part of the negotiations but one of both sides didn't feel it was worth it.

So, while small and easy to fix and beneficial to everyone, it would appear that it was a price not worth paying.

One little word covers almost all the Brexit stuff so far, 'reciprocal'.

The UK had reciprocal arrangements while in the EU. They were told they couldn't cherry pick. And in trade deals the smaller partner doesn't win, in the give and take they tend to give a little more that they take.

Even when given a chance to get a reciprocal deal like the musicians visas the UK didn't. small and easy to fix and beneficial to everyone


And then there's the most favoured nation thing tying the EU's hands.

forgottenhills

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let’s be realistic if EU give in on “small potatoes” issues next day Boris be in uk media hailed as Chip King for showing those nasty vaccine fearing Germans what a real potato tastes like.

No after the vaccine fiasco the world reasonable and cooperation don’t fit on same sentence as word UK.

They were warned repeatedly of issues in hundreds of sectors. The answer I believe was “f£&k business” from the current prime minister.

Its not giving in, its allowing seed imports from the UK so that seed exports can continue in the other direction and all sides continue to trade amicably.

Yes of course the UK negotiators messed up but there is no reason not to allow small fixes to be applied here and there where it suits the EU.

forgottenhills

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One little word covers almost all the Brexit stuff so far, 'reciprocal'.

The UK had reciprocal arrangements while in the EU. They were told they couldn't cherry pick. And in trade deals the smaller partner doesn't win, in the give and take they tend to give a little more that they take.

Even when given a chance to get a reciprocal deal like the musicians visas the UK didn't. small and easy to fix and beneficial to everyone


And then there's the most favoured nation thing tying the EU's hands.

The most favoured nation thing is a WTO consideration and doesn't come into play in the EUs specific trade deals such as the TCA with the UK.

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

Its not giving in, its allowing seed imports from the UK so that seed exports can continue in the other direction and all sides continue to trade amicably.

Yes of course the UK negotiators messed up but there is no reason not to allow small fixes to be applied here and there where it suits the EU.

Pretty much any of these things would "benefit the EU", or at least some business inside it. But it chips away at 1. the Single Market's integrity, and 2. reasons for countries to stay in it, and 3. its WHO obligations with other third countries.

Frankly, Ireland has an enormous market to adapt its lost trade to, and that's the route it should take. The UK doesn't, and it didn't want it. It wants to be global, so let it sell its small potatoes to New Zealand.

We all find it rather frustrating that after years of this being spelled out very clearly, the EU is being blamed for the deal the UK rushed through with no extension mid-Covid for purely domestic political reasons.

The fact it would be treated as getting one over on the dastardly EU also takes away any incentive. The UK's garbage media does filter down through the entire population, as I've noticed with British colleagues talking about vaccines.

It's like asking the ex-wife for extra custody and then going around telling your mutual friends she's a stupid weak bitch for giving it.

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

It's you who don't understand trade deals. The EU and the UK have signed a trade deal on goods so they don't trade on WTO terms and hence mutual derogations are possible.

No I understand them very well unlike you appearantly; if something is not in the trade deal it goes to WTO terms. Guess what's not in the trade deal UK signed? That they would keep EU standards on agriculture. Guess what that means? It's WTO terms territory for the product quality and standards.

UK decided to sign a FTA that only removed tariffs and nothing else which means anything else beyond tariffs falls under WTO terms instead. That was a UK choice; they had the option to have a FTA with agricultural export going through as normal but said no we don't want to do that because it means we'll be bound to the EU rules and regulations going forward (this is only a bad thing if you intend to lower your standards because nothing stops your from setting higher standards yourself). That decision has consequences on both sides but there's zero reason for EU to start fudging that agreement because unlike the UK EU knows what comes next in terms of WTO cases etc. That also means all UK export to EU will be checked accordingly because UK = China = Azerbaijan in terms of rules now because of UK's government choice in FTA.

yagan

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact it would be treated as getting one over on the dastardly EU also takes away any incentive. The UK's garbage media does filter down through the entire population, as I've noticed with British colleagues talking about vaccines.

It's like asking the ex-wife for extra custody and then going around telling your mutual friends she's a stupid weak bitch for giving it.

The next time you're exposed to their circle jerk ask them if the EU should have practiced vaccine nationalism like the USA, and if they say yes then remind them that 2/3 of the UK rollout came from the EU.

Seth Brundle

forgottenhills wrote: »

Its not giving in, its allowing seed imports from the UK so that seed exports can continue in the other direction and all sides continue to trade amicably.

Yes of course the UK negotiators messed up but there is no reason not to allow small fixes to be applied here and there where it suits the EU.

So like a mini-deal then. Maybe there should be mini-deals about so many things?
Just like the UK predicted they would get.
And just like the EU said they wouldn't facilitate.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

Its not giving in, its allowing seed imports from the UK so that seed exports can continue in the other direction and all sides continue to trade amicably.

Seed exports from the EU to the UK are not prohibited. In fact, they're not really controlled in any meaningful way because the UK does not have the personnel or infrastructure necessary to check their imports. So no benefit for us there.

However, the UK has already diverged from the EU with regard to authorising pesticides that are banned for use in the EU. How does your proposed mini-deal-derogation in respect of Scottish seed potatoes protect Irish farmers/consumers/wildlife from actions such as this?

BlitzKrieg

forgottenhills wrote: »

Its not giving in, its allowing seed imports from the UK so that seed exports can continue in the other direction and all sides continue to trade amicably.

Yes of course the UK negotiators messed up but there is no reason not to allow small fixes to be applied here and there where it suits the EU.

forgottenhills wrote: »

The most favoured nation thing is a WTO consideration and doesn't come into play in the EUs specific trade deals such as the TCA with the UK.

But thats the issue here, the UK is not pushing for small fixes to the trade deal, they are pushing to just let them do it, to have the EU look the other way and let things continue the way they did because it benefitted both of them (which is why it can be a WTO issue as none of it is actually part of the trade deal).

A lot of these issues wouldn't be issues if the UK brought them to the floor for negotiation and implementation into some sort of legal agreement, more so now then later, as the final text of the trade agreement has not been approved by EU parliament and the EU would prefer to wrap everything up into one text.

But the UK are not doing that for 2 reasons.

The first which is most important to Boris is that it will completely tank his national image. If he re-opens the Brexit negotiations his whole "Get Brexit done" image comes crashing down. It's why the UK government keeps trying to report all these issues as 'new' additions the EU has sprung on the UK. Boris cant have it formally happen, he can let the minority media wag its tongue about the failures of Brexit all it wants but he cant have it be official that he went back to the negotiating table on Brexit. because then it stops being remoaner propaganda and becomes fact.

The second which is probably most important to the actual sane members of the UK government is that they are now in an even worst negotiating position then previously versus the EU. Even if the EU is fair, it will be too much for the UK, because fair will have the EU getting more access to the whole of the UK as an equivalent to the UK getting more access to the EU.

This is why the negotiations rumbles from the UK have been aimed at renegotiating the Northern Ireland agreement and not the trade deal itself. They want to keep as much of this locked and focused on just Northern Ireland and not give anything to the EU in relation to mainland UK.

Pablo Escobar

forgottenhills wrote: »

The most favoured nation thing is a WTO consideration and doesn't come into play in the EUs specific trade deals such as the TCA with the UK.

But your argument is about something not covered by the trade deal, is it not? Then it falls to WTO. Therefore, MFN is very much in play.

I really wish the Brits would get on with building their wall, or trading with Ghana or whatever the plan was and stop wasting our time with this absolute nonsense.

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

No I understand them very well unlike you appearantly; if something is not in the trade deal it goes to WTO terms. Guess what's not in the trade deal UK signed? That they would keep EU standards on agriculture. Guess what that means? It's WTO terms territory for the product quality and standards.

UK decided to sign a FTA that only removed tariffs and nothing else which means anything else beyond tariffs falls under WTO terms instead. That was a UK choice; they had the option to have a FTA with agricultural export going through as normal but said no we don't want to do that because it means we'll be bound to the EU rules and regulations going forward (this is only a bad thing if you intend to lower your standards because nothing stops your from setting higher standards yourself). That decision has consequences on both sides but there's zero reason for EU to start fudging that agreement because unlike the UK EU knows what comes next in terms of WTO cases etc. That also means all UK export to EU will be checked accordingly because UK = China = Azerbaijan in terms of rules now because of UK's government choice in FTA.

Once again you are wrong when you state that any new concessions given by the EU and the UK to each other have to be given to other third countries under WTO rules. There is a EU UK Partnership Council set up under the TCA which has the power to amend the implementation and interpretation and even the text of the TCA by mutual agreement. For instance potato imports for food seem to be allowed under the TCA so it shouldn't be a massive step to also allow a derogation for seed potatoes to go in both directions.

forgottenhills

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So like a mini-deal then. Maybe there should be mini-deals about so many things?
Just like the UK predicted they would get.
And just like the EU said they wouldn't facilitate.

Changes where it suits both sides can be introduced under the aegis of the Partnership Council provision of the TCA. Its not a new deal.

schmoo2k

forgottenhills wrote: »

Changes where it suits both sides can be introduced under the aegis of the Partnership Council provision of the TCA. Its not a new deal.

Exactly - hence there is no need for pretend anger on the UK side?

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

Seed exports from the EU to the UK are not prohibited. In fact, they're not really controlled in any meaningful way because the UK does not have the personnel or infrastructure necessary to check their imports. So no benefit for us there.

However, the UK has already diverged from the EU with regard to authorising pesticides that are banned for use in the EU. How does your proposed mini-deal-derogation in respect of Scottish seed potatoes protect Irish farmers/consumers/wildlife from actions such as this?

The UK issued a derogation to imports of seed potatoes from the EU which lasts until June and may not be continued. If pesticides are an issue in seed potatoes, and I am not sure how they could be as these are not for food, then any mutually agreed derogation could impose regulations in this specific area.

I don't want to labour this whole spuds discussion too much, as it was just chosen as an examplar. The point is that flexibilities to make slight adjustments to the TCA, that boost producers in both regions, should be looked at on their own merits and not get lost in daft political hostilities.

forgottenhills

schmoo2k wrote: »

Exactly - hence there is no need for pretend anger on the UK side?

Not sure what you mean by that. There is a lot of anger expressed in places like here too where it seems that people haven't moved on to acceptance that the UK have left the EU. Its time to move on and make the best of a bad situation.

BlitzKrieg

forgottenhills wrote: »

Once again you are wrong when you state that any new concessions given by the EU and the UK to each other have to be given to other third countries under WTO rules. There is a EU UK Partnership Council set up under the TCA which has the power to amend the implementation and interpretation and even the text of the TCA by mutual agreement. For instance potato imports for food seem to be allowed under the TCA so it shouldn't be a massive step to also allow a derogation for seed potatoes to go in both directions.

The tools you are suggesting are the very tools the UK is currently ignoring.

There's no argument here on the UK using these tools and going through the agreed process.

But they havnt and have been insisting that they shouldnt.

You say there is anger here and we should accept the UK has left.

But it feels like we are the ones that have accepted the UK has left and it's the British who've not. We are waiting for them to go through the very channels you are suggesting but they wont.

We had a former Brexit mep blame the EU for the ending of Freedom of Movement for the UK just last week.

schmoo2k

forgottenhills wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that. There is a lot of anger expressed in places like here too where it seems that people haven't moved on to acceptance that the UK have left the EU. Its time to move on and make the best of a bad situation.

You were making the point that the EU should "bend" the rules for the UK:

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

And then pointed out that there is actually an official mechanism to achieve the same goals - IOW bending the rules suggestion is simply daft, if the UK or EU is hurting in a specific area, then there are official mechanisms in place to address them - simples.

Leroy42

Let's play this out Forgotten. Lets us say that the EU and UK agree that it is in both sides interests to sort this issue out.

The EU standards are clear and well known, the UK less so. But today, they are aligned. When the UK standards change at what point does the EU close the loophole? According to your position, there can't ever really be a point, since it is in both sides interest to just ignore it and pretend otherwise.

Now the EU are constantly worried about changes in the UK, to which of course they have no impact on or may not even be made aware of. You then get EU producers complaining that they are losing business because they are being undercut by UK producers who do not have the same requirements or obligations.

So the problem has simply been moved from the UK to the EU. Why would the EU sign up to something like that?

But, as has been the case since the deal was agreed, the main problem is that the UK are not being honest with themselves as to what they have actually agreed to. This is not being presented as an oversight or an issue for further negotiation, the UK simply want special treatment.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

If pesticides are an issue in seed potatoes, and I am not sure how they could be as these are not for food, then any mutually agreed derogation could impose regulations in this specific area.

Pesticides, amongst other things, are an issue, and the UK has unequivocally stated - and drafted legislation to this effect - that it will not agree to maintain the previous standards, and (as pointed out) has already exercised the option of authorising the use in the UK of products that are banned in the EU.

Hence the regulations imposed in this specific area since Jan 1st.

Also, if you don't see how pesticides are of concern beyond their use in or on fruit and vegetables for immediate consumption, you have a lot of learning to do. That may, however, explain why you don't see how your simplistic appeasement measures are neither practical nor reasonable.